I Doubt about partition functions in QFT and in stat Mechanics

Iliody
Messages
23
Reaction score
5
Hi, I was studying for my final exam on statistical physics and a doubt raised on my head that was truly strong and disturbing (at least, for me), and that I couldn't answer to myself by now.

The doubt is: Given that we have in d dimensions a fermion non interacting gas, the statistical mechanics partition function will be

Z=∏p∈R^{d+1}, spin∈Z2 (1+e^{-β√(p2+m2)}))
"=det(1+e^{-β√(p2+m2)}))",
and in (d-1)+1 dimensions for a Dirac action will have as wick-rotated partition function

Z(β)=det(β(iγ⋅∂+m))

Are both related in some way?

I mean, they are systems with the same Hamiltonians, and given that there is a lot of analogies between the formalisms of QFT and statistical physics I though that both needed to be a little more similar...

Is there a relation between the two that I am not seeing? What's wrong with my intuition? I will be very grateful for any answer (if it isn't on the line of "Quantum Field Theory is a myth, the real thing is Aliens").

Sorry if this question was against the rules (I don't know for now if it could be).

(After posting this question here, I posted in phys*** st**kexc***ge, but I deleted from that place... Is that wrong? Sorry)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Because I can't edit the post (I know that there are good reasons for that), I will retype the mathematical expressions using LaTex, for making them more understandable:
1-Fermi-Dirac in Statistical mechanics:
Z_{F-D}=\prod_{p\in \mathbb{R}^{d+1}} \prod_{s\in\{-\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\}} (1+e^{-\beta\sqrt{p^2+m^2}})
Z_{F-D}=det(1+e^{-\beta\sqrt{p^2+m^2}})
2-Dirac in QFT
Z_{Dirac-QFT}=det(\beta(m+i \displaystyle{\not} \partial))
 
Explaining a little more:
-The trouble I hace is un the difference between \sum_n \rangle n | e^{-\beta \hat{H}} | n \langle [\tex] and \int \prod_{i\in fieldcomponents} e^{-\beta H} [\tex]<br /> <br /> If a field is grassman-like, in the first case we sum between "mide is turn on"+" mode is turn off", but in the other case we only take into account the case un which it's turn con only?<br /> Something similar appears to happen in the bosonic case (difference of partition function "per mode")
 
Homer simpson doh:
I remembered today, talking with a friend, that this thing was there in the advanced qft course that we had taken. It's useful that I post here the answer in a few days, if someone has the same question? Or it's better for this post to be deleted and be burned in the oblivion ice's?

Cheers to the community.
 
In my opinion, posting the solution would be more useful.
 
OK, well... this is a pretty standard thermal QFT calculation:

*First: When we do the Wick rotation and make the time periodic (With time period = \hbar \beta), we have as log of partition function <br /> log Z_{Dirac-QFT}=Tr[ln(\prod_{n+1\in 2\mathbb{Z}} \beta(m+i \gamma \cdot \nabla + \gamma_0 \frac{2\pi n}{\beta}))]=\frac{1}{2}Tr[ln(\prod_{n+1\in 2\mathbb{Z}} (\beta^2(m^2+p^2)+4\pi^2 n^2))]=Tr[ln(\prod_{n-1\in 2\mathbb{N}} (\frac{\beta^2(m^2+p^2)}{4\pi^2 n^2}+1))]+const=Tr[ln(cosh(\frac{\beta\sqrt{m^2+p^2}}{2}))]+const=Tr[ln(1+exp(-\beta\sqrt{m^2+p^2}))]+Tr[ln(exp(\frac{\beta\sqrt{m^2+p^2}}{2}))]+const<br />. The former is equal to the fermi-dirac partition function plus an energy shift and with a different normalization.
 
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Back
Top